Zp 24/96

Jesus, get over yourself mate, he said they're looking at it, he didn't say they would do it, he didn't even say they COULD do it, there's a lot of technical obstacles to overcome in order to implement it whilst still maintaining basic functionality, such as volume control.

What the status of the 24-bit requests over on ask.sonos.com? Not Planned or Under Consideration?

Under consideration seems more like it from the posts above. Anyway, with all the ultra-negative talk and notion that there's no chance SONOS will implement, I sold my gear and bought a Bluesound system. I bet Bluesound, which is gaining momentum, wouldn't even exist as competition if SONOS would've implemented higher bit rates.

This will be my last post (notifications off). Thanks for all those who added constructive feedback!

Actually, the status is officially 'Not Planned', and has remained such for a few years. Until it changes, I imagine the_lhc's analysis to be more reality than any other.

Actually, the status is officially 'Not Planned',

Yes that's what I thought but I couldn't be bothered with wrestling the Ask search function in order to find out.

Actually, the status is officially 'Not Planned', and has remained such for a few years. Until it changes, I imagine the_lhc's analysis to be more reality than any other.
Does Sonos signal new features via this route as a practice - where these have been requested of course.
The Sonos response in the interview is the classic way of answering a question in corporate speak, where you don't want to put out anything definitive unless on one's terms.

Does Sonos signal new features via this route as a practice - where these have been requested of course.
The Sonos response in the interview is the classic way of answering a question in corporate speak, where you don't want to put out anything definitive unless on one's terms.

So far, every new feature has gone from 'Under Consideration' to 'Planned' approximately 2 releases before coming to fruition. There has not been one feature that has changed from 'Not Planned' to 'Under Consideration' or 'Planned'.

That is quite impressive signalling discipline for features that are in response to requests. I am not sure who else does this - Sonos must be in rare company if not unique in this.

I for one am quite open to hearing a fair comparison of these with Sonos on all important aspects on this thread, particularly with respect to multi room single source audio - in sync or different music in each room.

You should go visit other forums if you want this.

I have found that my ECM albums bought on ITunes in 256kbps lossy files sound as good as my lossless CD rips - and better than some that aren't as well mastered.
Another data point on this subject in the linked article about Pono makes interesting reading:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/it-was-one-of-kickstarters-most-successful-109496883039.html
The title is apt - The Emperor has no clothes.

I have found that my ECM albums bought on ITunes in 256kbps lossy files sound as good as my lossless CD rips - and better than some that aren't as well mastered.
Another data point on this subject in the linked article about Pono makes interesting reading:
https://www.yahoo.com/tech/it-was-one-of-kickstarters-most-successful-109496883039.html
The title is apt - The Emperor has no clothes.

Are you saying your MP3 downloads sound as good as your ripped cd's ? If so, how can that be since MP3 by definition doesn't include all the information.

BTW....if you still have those Spends, those are nice speakers but I think they would open up with some more current behind them.

Are you saying your MP3 downloads sound as good as your ripped cd's ? If so, how can that be since MP3 by definition doesn't include all the information.

Well they're probably AAC for a start, today's codecs are an awful lot better than the original ones were but perhaps the main reason is because beyond a certain bitrate it really is very difficult to tell the difference.

I use 320Kbps mp3 in my car and in that environment (which isn't the best obviously) I can't tell any difference between that and 24-bit FLAC, never mind 16-bit FLAC.

If so, how can that be since MP3 by definition doesn't include all the information.

Because, by definition, information does not equal audio.

For instance, I could apply a low-level background noise to a track which most people could not hear. They would not be able to tell the difference between that and the original track in blind testing, even on high-end equipment in acoustically isolated rooms.

That is information, but it is information that cannot be heard. It is a huge error to think that every piece of information or data in digital file formats is audible.

The whole point of lossy audio compression standards like MP3 is that they attempt to minimise the audible affects of the data loss. As the compression level is increased that becomes impossible to do without obvious audible changes, but as the compression levels decrease the differences become increasingly small. There will be a point at which, for a given track, even though a lot of the original "information" has been removed and the file size is smaller, the differences will be inaudible.

Opinions vary on where this point is but most tests suggest that at 320bit/s CBR, MP3s are mostly indistinguishable from the original uncompressed CD.

Cheers,

Keith